JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner was a regular student of Smith Inter College, Azamgarh. fie filed an application form for appearing in the High School examination of 1979 from the said college Due to the fact that his father had fallen ill, he made an application for change of his centre from Smith Intermediate College, Azamgarh to Gandhi Vidyalava Inter College, Maroofpur. When the petitioner received his admit card For appearing in the High School examination he found that his centre was gill Smith Intermediate College. Azamgarh. He approached the Principal of the said college and he was informed orally by the Principal that most likely his centre must have been changed and hie should Contact the Principal of Gandhi Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Maroofpur. The Principal of Gandhi Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Maroofpur informed the petitioner that no formal order has been received for the change, of the centre but the Additional Secretary had orally told him that the centre of the petitioner had been changed and, consequently, the petitioner was permitted to appear' from the centre, Gandhi Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Maroofpur. 2. The petitioner appeared from the above centre and his result was declared and he was declared passed by the Board. Subsequently, he received a communication from the Principal of Smith Intermediate College, Azamgarh dated 15th April, 1980 enclosing a copy of the order dated .29-2-1 -80 passed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, cancelling his examination on the ground that he had appeared from the centre from which he could not have appeared as his centre had not been changed by the Board. The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 29th February, 1980 passed by the Board cancelling petitioner's High School examination. 3. We have beard the learned-counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order dated 29-2-1980 had been passed by the Board without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 4. In cur opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. 5. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner has categorically stated that no latter was received by the petitioner either through post or personally before the receipt of the order dated 29-2-1980 cancelling his examination. This paragraph has been sworn on personal knowledge. 6. 5. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner has categorically stated that no latter was received by the petitioner either through post or personally before the receipt of the order dated 29-2-1980 cancelling his examination. This paragraph has been sworn on personal knowledge. 6. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that a letter was sent to the petitioner dated 26-10-1979 but no reply was sent to the petitioner of the letter dated 26-10-1979 and, consequently, the action was taken by an order dated 29-2-1980. This paragraph of the counter-affidavit has been sworn on the basis of the record. Neither the copy of the Tetter dated 26-10-1979 has Vein annexed with the counter-affidavit nor it has been stated that the said letter was sent by registered post. The allegations made in the counter-affidavit have been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. From a reading of various affidavits filed on record, we are satisfied that it has not been established that the petitioner received the letter dated 26-10-1979, the petitioner did not have proper opportunity of being heard before his examination was cancelled. It is well settled that once the result is declared and, thereafter, if the examining authority seeks to cancel the result of the examinee it is necessary thatan opportunity of hearing is given to the candidate concerned. In the absence of proper opportunity, the action taken would be against the principles of natural justice and would be void in law. In view of the above, the petition is liable to succeed. The petition is consequently allowed. The order dated 29-2-1980 in hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.